New Democrats push to stop Homolka pardon

115 posts / 0 new
Last post
Stargazer

Hahahahaha!! Good one skdadl, I'm sure that point will be well taken :)

Slumberjack

Pogo wrote:
 A poster habitually comes into a thread that mentions the NDP to post about how the NDP failed in this particular situation.  Someone notes that pattern and calls him or her on it and soon after the moderator steps in and tells this person to stop it.  The lesson is learn the rules and you can circumvent the spirit of the rules and the arbitrators will protect you.

Yes, well, clearly the rules could stand a little revision from time to time, something along the lines of only allowing favorable comments in NDP related threads, to cut down on needless outbursts and opinions.  But I know what Cueball is saying about there being never enough time in the day, which is why we keep Unionist around to mine the threads for the letters NDP.

Unionist

Pogo wrote:

Yes he did temporaily and with severe reservations hold his nose and support the NDP for a very short period of time.  Since then he has made a point of walking away from the NDP more times than the Liberals have promised universal childcare.  In this thread there were excellent point about how the NDP were able to derail the main bill while pouring water on the Conservatives gunpowder.  That is totally glossed ignored when he posted.  In the Libby Davies thread he hectors everyone to throw their support behind Davies a long time NDP MP, but has no problem crapping on the party at the same time.  How many times has he made the claim that Layton is going to force Davies to quit (even though those closer to the scene have repeatedly refuted it)

I personally have no problem with your criticism of the NDP and us as NDP members.  In part is because you don't jump on every opportunity to smear the NDP.  I can't same about Unionist.

I am a card carrying NDP member but I am not very active right now.  There is lots about party politics that I question.  Still I don't think it is either progressive or constructive for a poster to focus their attention on urging people to abandon the party (or repeately providing analysis that leads to this).  I don't like it when people do it to the NDP and I don't like it when people do it to progressive Greens either.

I thought this was truly precious. Checking back, the only comment I made about the NDP in this thread was this:

Unionist wrote:
The NDP should learn how to make its own way in life. If it spends its time responding to provocations by Conservatives and Liberals, it won't be seen for the leadership role it can certainly play.

This was a comment of support and encouragement - a suggestion from an ally that the party should lay out a program and stick to it, not get derailed by Conservative talking points (as it got derailed during the 2005-6 election when it become tough on crime, and the passage of the omnibus crime bill). You, Pogo, turn this into a paranoid attack on me, relating it to other abominations I've committed (like defending Libby Davies more vociferously than any of the known NDP members here). Of course I flagged your post for the mods attention, because look at the ugly scence you created for the next following posts. But I just wanted to ask you whether, in years on this board, you recall me ever dumping on you for your posts or your politics.

Maysie Maysie's picture

I'm going into an all-day facilitation session, so I just wanted to say: Pogo, don't drag issues from other threads into this one and referring to Unionist in the third person is disingenuous. There will always be criticism of the NDP here on babble, just as there will be always be praise and support. Anyone can do either, or both, as long as you all refrain from personal attacks, etc etc.

Have a nice day folks.

No Yards No Yards's picture

Pogo wrote:

I am a card carrying NDP member but I am not very active right now.  There is lots about party politics that I question.  Still I don't think it is either progressive or constructive for a poster to focus their attention on urging people to abandon the party (or repeately providing analysis that leads to this).  I don't like it when people do it to the NDP and I don't like it when people do it to progressive Greens either.

I don't understand your thinking here. Is Unionist, when he disagrees with what the NDP does, suppose to protest by joining the NDP and shutting up?

If you question party politics, then say something about it.

Maybe your progressive principles aren't as "sensitive" as some others, but for many of us the NDP has fone far beyond being willing to "pay them" to keep screwing over democratic principles.

back to the subject at hand:

Can anyone explain how this new bill would go about preventing Homolka from getting a pardon? Seems to me you either put in a specific exception for specific crimes, or you base it on some entirely subject process based on notoriety. 

Creating exceptions doesn't make a whole lot of sense as you either create a law where anyone committing whatever crime Homolka was charged with now can never get pardons, or you have to apply the exception to a class of criminals that would never get out of prison to be eligible for pardons in the first place.

If it's based on notoriety, then we have a situation where large news corps can pick their pet cases to concentrate on ... wouldn't really matter what the background of the case might be, as long as a major media outlet wanted to make the case notorious then the pardon could be refused.

Too many people confuse "justice" with the "principle of justice" ... the principle of justice is far more important than any single case of individual justice or injustice. It's far better that the principle is upheld even if it means that every once in a while there are individual cases where justice is not done.

 

George Victor

Slumberjack wrote:

Pogo wrote:
 A poster habitually comes into a thread that mentions the NDP to post about how the NDP failed in this particular situation.  Someone notes that pattern and calls him or her on it and soon after the moderator steps in and tells this person to stop it.  The lesson is learn the rules and you can circumvent the spirit of the rules and the arbitrators will protect you.

Yes, well, clearly the rules could stand a little revision from time to time, something along the lines of only allowing favorable comments in NDP related threads, to cut down on needless outbursts and opinions.  But I know what Cueball is saying about there being never enough time in the day, which is why we keep Unionist around to mine the threads for the letters NDP.

But the world is SO much bigger, the threats to us all SO much more concrete, than the little, narrow, sorry arguments that twist and turn into non-resolution.  And if appeals to reason and fairness move neither the perpetrator or the controllers of opinion hereabouts - in fact snotty little jibes like the above are routinely ignored by them - what chance for life outside the tormented little self-destructive world of "left" opinion?

This should probably have been posted in the debating forum, but that is such a broken reed, and one grows so tired of the Sisyphean ritual.       Better to go thin the carrots, take up that new book from the library, step outside the theatre of pain.

Cueball Cueball's picture

OK! Cool

Cueball Cueball's picture

No Yards wrote:

Pogo wrote:

I am a card carrying NDP member but I am not very active right now.  There is lots about party politics that I question.  Still I don't think it is either progressive or constructive for a poster to focus their attention on urging people to abandon the party (or repeately providing analysis that leads to this).  I don't like it when people do it to the NDP and I don't like it when people do it to progressive Greens either.

If it's based on notoriety, then we have a situation where large news corps can pick their pet cases to concentrate on ... wouldn't really matter what the background of the case might be, as long as a major media outlet wanted to make the case notorious then the pardon could be refused..

 

From what I understand it is to be based on the number of felonies. For example, if you get charged with assault, a weapons charge and resisting arrest, say in the case where you are Jaywalking, and hit a police officer with your school notebook and then try and run away, and you are convicted on all three counts, no pardon for you.

Or, if you are a former Attorney General, and you hit a cyclist with your car, and then try and evade the accident and then kill the victim as he tries to stop you from getting away, they fly in your friends from BC and you get pardoned right away.

Hope that clarifies things.

ottawaobserver

I don't think that, strictly speaking, that last one was a pardon.  More of a pardonnez-moi, je ne savais pas que vous etiez un mukky-muk.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

George, you seem incapable of resisting personal attacks of babblers who criticize, however lightly, the NDP. You've been warned again and again, and there was also a general warning in this thread, which you ignored. I'm giving you three days off.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
This was a comment of support and encouragement - a suggestion from an ally that the party should lay out a program and stick to it, not get derailed by Conservative talking points (as it got derailed during the 2005-6 election when it become tough on crime, and the passage of the omnibus crime bill).

It was the Liberal Party and Alan Rock who were obsessed with tackling violent crime while they ignored [url=http://www.sfu.ca/cmns/research/newswatch/pcc/94-4.html]white collar crime estimated to be worth $30 billion a year[/url] in Canada in 1994.

I'm an NDPer, and I like the fact that the NDP is tougher on crime that pays than either of the other two in coalition government today. The NDP can be said to be "tougher on crime" than Liberals or Tories who have been out to lunch for many years when it comes to toughening laws against everything from stock fraud to corporate tax evasion in the many billions of dollars over the years. That's money that could be invested in health care or even a national day care program etc. The NDP are always coming up with excellent ways to transform our Northern Puerto Rico into a real country.

Webgear

No Yards wrote:

Too many people confuse "justice" with the "principle of justice" ... the principle of justice is far more important than any single case of individual justice or injustice. It's far better that the principle is upheld even if it means that every once in a while there are individual cases where justice is not done.

 

Has justice been done in this case? Karla Homolka has served her part of the deal and now the game has changed when she is eligible for a pardon.

As far as I am aware she is not even listed as a dangerous offender. We are now on the slippery slope of "tough on crime", a game that all political parties are playing.

 

 

Unionist

Webgear, your arguments are persuasive, and I agree.

remind remind's picture

ya....................lmao

Unionist

:rolleyes" ROFLMAO whoopdedoo.

LOL.

No Yards No Yards's picture

Webgear wrote:

No Yards wrote:

Too many people confuse "justice" with the "principle of justice" ... the principle of justice is far more important than any single case of individual justice or injustice. It's far better that the principle is upheld even if it means that every once in a while there are individual cases where justice is not done.

 

Has justice been done in this case? Karla Homolka has served her part of the deal and now the game has changed when she is eligible for a pardon.

As far as I am aware she is not even listed as a dangerous offender. We are now on the slippery slope of "tough on crime", a game that all political parties are playing.

 

 

 

The "principle of justice" has been done, which is all that should count as far as politicians are concerned.

Yeah, in this case individual justice may have been far less than perfect, but we can't have politicians "fixing" individual cases by creating crappy laws that end up taking rights away from others just to get back at one person.

If the NDP want to get tough on crime there are a lot better uses of their crime fighting energy  ... Bay Street for example.

Webgear

No Yards wrote:

but we can't have politicians "fixing" individual cases by creating crappy laws that end up taking rights away from others just to get back at one person.

 

I agree however this seems to be the standard practice now.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Ad hoc adminstrative edicts as a means of managing the justice system is a hallmark of fascist dictatorships.

Fidel

Let's pardon Hitler and the Nazis. Oops! Apparently our guys did just that after the war when they welcomed thousands of Nazi war criminals into the US and Canada. They lived out the rest of their natural lives in comfort and without fear of international law.

Stargazer

Yes, because that is entirely relevant to the discussion here. Okay, so here we go again - it is quite clear that this is a way to pander to votes, and possibly some type of twisted strategy to out con the Cons, whatever. The point people are making is that this new position is not needed. Do some research. It is almost impossible to get a pardon after committing murder, and given the notoriety of Karla Homolka there is ZERO chance she would ever get a pardon. Zero.

The conclusion then is that a) this is a stupid bill which will do absolutely nothing except give some people a sense of false security and b) what Cueball said about Michael Bryant.

And yeah, I guess I don't need to mention that hitler is dead.

Webgear

Well said Stargazer.

Fidel

And let's refuse to pardon repeat sexual predators of children on the loose while we're at it. Whoops! There was Grahame James in 2007. He's in Mexico where money buys all kinds of things. Darn NDP. They're too tough on crime!

Stargazer

Oh Fidel, you are sometimes endearingly cute in your defence of the NDP. Listen, I vote for them every single election, and I haven't missed one since I was 19. This is not about NDP bashing. It is about not standing behind a regressive policy that will do nothing to help anyone.Just a question - if the NDP were to back capital punishment would you defend that as well?

 

I'm not sure what you are getting at in your last comment - it is pretty clear we don't support rapists or child molesters.

 

And thank you dear Webgear,

 

 

Webgear

 

I am curious if capital punishment is next on the agenda. If public opinion can drive this pardon issue, can it drive the death penalty?

Unionist

Webgear wrote:

 

I am curious if capital punishment is next on the agenda. If public opinion can drive this pardon issue, can it drive the death penalty?

No, Webgear, public opinion had nothing to do with Homolka. It was Vic Toews - followed by the abject capitulation of the other parties, just as with the omnibus crime bill. There was no public demand about Homolka's pardon whatsoever until it was stoked by neo-con politicians for their own ends.

No Yards No Yards's picture

Then no pardons for manslaughter either, as that's what Homolka was "guilty" of.

As for sexual predators of children - the pardon doesn't take away the fact that they are still flagged if they apply for any job that brings them in contact with Children.

The Parole Board made a mistake, they can still refuse to pardon whomever they think doesn't deserve a pardon ... sometimes people make mistakes ... a law that removes all judgement from the system is just as likely to cause people that deserve pardons to not get them as it is to keep those that don't deserve them from getting them.

 

 

 

Stargazer

Exactly!

Webgear

Unionist, here is a poll from May. I think public opinion was a factor at some point.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/canadians_back_new_rules_for_criminal_pardons/

 

Agree

81%

Disagree

15%

Not sure

4%

Unionist

Webgear, please listen. This blood lust started in APRIL - with Vic Toews. Got any polls from MARCH? That might be more convincing as to what drove this issue, no?

From April 19:

[url=http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100419/justice_par... Homolka eligible, Tories to tighten pardon system[/url]

Webgear

I will look for some April polls. Yes, you are correct.

Stargazer

That's about the same time the facebook group was created about Homolka getting a pardon. The group attracted a lot of members, and is still going strong despite the fact no pardon was ever appiled for. This most certainly was a Con talking point that was hitched onto by the NDP.

 

Unionist is right.

Fidel

Stargazer wrote:
I'm not sure what you are getting at in your last comment - it is pretty clear we don't support rapists or child molesters.

And neither do I support child molestors or those who made deals with the devil for a lesser sentence. Even after videotape evidence found later showed she was a more active participant than she revealed.

We're not talking about capital punishment or even extending her sentence based on evidence that came out later. We're talking about remaining clear on what is not acceptable behaviour in society.Homolka was guilty as hell by all the evidence, and she doesn't deserve to be pardoned for her participation in the especially cruel rapes and murders of innocent young women including her own sister.

And I think the problem some are having with this is that it is the NDP proposing to block any possible pardon, which is possible based on their record of granting pardons to convicted sexual predators for no particularly good reasons. The system has botched justice before. It's not perfect, and that's why we need democratic opposition like the NDP pushing and prodding them at every turn. This is a glimpse of democracy at work.

Unionist

Funny no one thought of this profoundly abhorrent potential pardon before Vic Toews raised it. Now it has become an issue of principle. These are quite dangerous social phenomena, if you ask me, and bear watching. Not following.

 

remind remind's picture

:rolleyes:

 

everybody just follow along and ignore that the NDP are really going for is  having the Bill split apart......

 

all this other fluff and feathers is just a typical obscuring.

Webgear

Can you provide a link?

Unionist

Webgear wrote:

Can you provide a link?

[url=http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Parties+reach+deal+that+could+block+... me help out:[/url]

Quote:

The Liberals and NDP accused the Harper government yesterday of manufacturing an urgent crisis to hoodwink opposition parties into supporting the pardon bill with no debate.

"We've got to make sure that Karla Homolka doesn't get a pardon and we want to work with the government to find a way to make sure that happens," said NDP leader Jack Layton.

So, the "bill-splitting" was to ensure Homolka doesn't get a pardon, while leaving time to debate the other parts after summer break.

I think that's fairly crystal clear, no?

Oh, but he may have been misquoted by CanWest, so let's check out [url=http://www.ndp.ca/press/new-democrats-push-to-stop-homolka-pardon]the NDP website[/url]:

Quote:

New Democrats push to stop Homolka pardon

OTTAWA – New Democrats are pushing the Conservative government to urgently adopt legislation that would ensure criminals like Karla Homolka never receive a pardon.

New Democrat MP Malcolm Allen (Welland) has proposed a bill allowing the National Parole Board to deny pardons that would “bring the administration of justice into disrepute.” This bill is Allen’s second attempt this week to block Karla Homolka from receiving a pardon.

And there's a lot more.

Now, can anyone guess why this became such a burning issue? Did the prospect of a pardon come as a suprise?

Or did Vic Toews raise it in April, and no one wants to be seen as being soft on Karla Homolka?

 

Webgear

Thank you.

Fidel

Is it possible that crazy Vic Toews is wrong 100 percent of the time? The Liberal Party? NDP?

And I still think the the threads on electoral reform are the most important discussions on babble. We need advanced democracy, and we needed it yesterday. I'm just glad that by some fluke we don't have a phony majority government today making all the big decisions all by their lonesomes and forcing it down everyone's throats.

Webgear

 

Please start a thread about election reform then, we are attempting to discuss the current state of  pardon/justice system.

Fidel

And not parole or capital punishment either. You should thank BillBC for steering your anti-NDP thread in the right direction.

Stargazer

Oh for God's sakes Fidel. This is getting expressibly silly. Did you stop to think for a few moments that perhaps your attempt to paint us as anti-NDP (which clearly I am not, as I've explained to you a million times) may end up driving people away?

 

Debate what we are saying and stop with the "criticism of the NDP means you must be anti-NDP" -  it is starting to piss me off.

No Yards No Yards's picture

Criticism of Israel makes you Antisemitic, so criticism of the NDP make you Antisocialist .... or maybe it makes you a better friend of both than those who would stand by and allow their destruction from within by people who believe that Jews or Socialists can only be true Jews and Socialists by bowing unquestionably to the official Jewish and Socialist "establishment" no matter how far they stray from Jewish or Socialist principles.

Stargazer

Well said No Yards.

Fidel

Stargazer wrote:

Oh for God's sakes Fidel. This is getting expressibly silly. Did you stop to think for a few moments that perhaps your attempt to paint us as anti-NDP (which clearly I am not, as I've explained to you a million times) may end up driving people away?

 

Debate what we are saying and stop with the "criticism of the NDP means you must be anti-NDP" -  it is starting to piss me off.

Well I was almost ready to criticize the NDP for wanting to deny parole to a convicted criminal who is now free as a bird. I was thinking that the NDP must have lost their minds on this one.

Webgear

 

 

Mark this date, Fidel was about to criticize the NDP.

Stargazer

I would mark the date, but I see that instead of saying anything at all negative, he screwed up (deliberatly) what we were saying in this thread.

 

Don't you know by now that the NDP was only trying to deny a "convicted criminal" a pardon - note the use of inflammatory rhetoric as seen above in post #94.

 

Not only does this statement not mesh with any facts at all. I would suggest that Fidel read up on just who screwed this up from beginning to end - the police. But hey, no reason to let facts get in the way when pure uncritical emotion works just as well

Fidel

Yes they did screw it up pretty badly. And the cops have screwed up more murder cases than this one.

But what does the NDP have to do with "paroling" a sadistic serial rapist and muderer's wife who aided him in committing the crimes? Let's turn this around on the usuals and ask them what in hell were they thinking?

 

Stargazer

Who is paroling anyone Fidel? You are deliberatively missing the point. But I know you know that.

Fidel

Oakily doakily then. So it's not as bad as I thought. The NDP doesn't actually want pardons for sex offenders like Grahame James, or sadistic killers like Karla Homolka to be handed out like so many free condoms and illicit drugs at a Liberal-Tory Party, $1000 dollar a plate Pagan festival.

So how can we possibly make this look like the NDP are da bad guys?

No Yards No Yards's picture

So, how would this bill prevent Homolka from receiving a pardon ... assuming she were applying for one in the first place?

Remember now, if she were to ask for a pardon at all it would be asking for a pardon for manslaughter, and not the heinous crime of sadistic murder.

Pages

Topic locked